Cause of AF1441 touch-and-go at CDG on Nov 27th, 2018?

[BoeingBobby]

I guess there's always more to learn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYEuEkZYYic

Looked it up, I stand corrected, in a bigly way!

[SpaceDoc]

Might have sighted something, some debris perhaps, and played it safe. Anything large should have prompted the go-around while still in the air. Did the plane derotate (nose gear down) or did it just touch the main gear?

no "derotation"

[Gabriel]

Might have sighted something, some debris perhaps, and played it safe. Anything large should have prompted the go-around while still in the air.

Define large, and also take into account timing.

I once went around due to a dog on the runway at an altitude that I don't think a A320 would have been able to avoid runway contact before gaining altitude again (heck, I believe that at the moment of starting the go around my eye was lower than the eye of an A321 pilot at the moment of touchdown in a normal landing).
And it was not only the fact that a dog is not so large. I don't know if I had been able to spot it earlier had it been sitting on the runway instead of crossing in front of me.

Typically the "committed to complete land and stop" is the moment you pull reverse. Before that point you can DECIDE to start a go-around after touching down.

[3WE]

Looked it up, I stand corrected, in a bigly way!

“We” have this thing for insider jargon, you know.

Ironingly, A friend survived a near death abortion after his flight hit a jackrabbit. The wabbit did died. And the brakes needed cooling. Ban all aircraft.

[Evan]

Define large...

Something made of metal or cheap crackerbox composites with wings or wheels attached.

[Gabriel]

A car 1.5 miles down the runway may be hard to spot from 200 ft high and .05 miles before the runway.
A car that is not on the runway YET util you are almost about to touch down and THEN it crosses in front of you would be IMPOSSIBLE to spot it ON the runway from 200 ft and 0.5 miles out because it was not there.
A dog (or a bull) is non-metallic, non-composites, and lacks wheels or wings so it is not large.
DH is a "last point" criteria for go around only for the land/GA decision when approaching in IMC. If you don't see the runway by the DH, go around.
DH has nothing to do with other kind of go around decisions. In fact, it is somehow routine for the tower to say "expect landing clearance by the numbers" (especially out of USA where, in most parts, ATC is NOT allowed to clear an airplane to land until the runway is a) Clear and b) Expected to remain clear until landing (vs the US standard of "expected to be clear by landing). That said, in those cases the pilots would typically perform the GA without touching down if not cleared to land in time.

Until we know what happened, it is impossible to assess how serious the situation was.

[Evan]

A car... a dog... a bull... a meteorite...

Of course, things can show up rather unexpectedly at any time. Perhaps that's what happened here. I think you would agree, however, that a car on the runway might be considered a somewhat serious incident.

DH is a "last point" criteria for go around only for the land/GA decision when approaching in IMC. If you don't see the runway by the DH, go around.
DH has nothing to do with other kind of go around decisions.

I think that's somewhat debatable. DH (or MDA) is the point at which the 'runway environment' has to be in view or you go around. I see two reasons for that: navigation and conflict avoidance. You confirm that the runway is where it's supposed to be and that you can safely assess that the runway is yours and yours alone. But, as DH (and MDA) are variable values, lets throw them out and just say 'the altitude at which a go around can still be performed without contacting the runway', which hopefully will be beyond those points. I hope attentive pilots (not blindly relying on tower clearance) would be able to spot a large object** before then.

But does DH/MDA require pilots to establish visual contact with the entire runway or just the threshold? At what point are pilots required to have full runway visibility?

**Airplane-bending

[Gabriel]

Of course, things can show up rather unexpectedly at any time. Perhaps that's what happened here. I think you would agree, however, that a car on the runway might be considered a somewhat serious incident.

I would indeed.

I think that's somewhat debatable. DH (or MDA) is the point at which the 'runway environment' has to be in view or you go around. I see two reasons for that: navigation and conflict avoidance. You confirm that the runway is where it's supposed to be and that you can safely assess that the runway is yours and yours alone. [...]

But does DH/MDA require pilots to establish visual contact with the entire runway or just the threshold? At what point are pilots required to have full runway visibility?

Just the touchdown environment, and not even that. If you see the approach lights by DH you can continue with the approach down to x feet (I believe it is 100 ft for a CAT I approach where the DH is typically 200 ft) before you actually see the touchdown environment.

The DH/MDA is only for transition from instrument flight to visual flight and has nothing to do with the runway being clear of stuff or conflict avoidance as you said. Or think of a CAT III approach where, even after touchdown, you may be able to see only a few feet ahead of the plane (you may need a "follow me" car to be able to taxi to the gate).

[ATLcrew]

At what point are pilots required to have full runway visibility?

At no point. Such a requirement would be impractical. For one thing, it would eliminate any approach with a visibility minimum less than the length of the runway. For another, it would eliminate crested runways.

[3WE]

At no point. Such a requirement would be impractical. For one thing, it would eliminate any approach with a visibility minimum less than the length of the runway. For another, it would eliminate crested runways.

Runways are not level? Dear God, no.

(/sarcasm, The scientific CIVIL engineers around Flyover (and over a LOT of years,) did some things to reduce the amount of dirt moving that was be done)

[SpaceDoc]

Of course, things can show up rather unexpectedly at any time. Perhaps that's what happened here. I think you would agree, however, that a car on the runway might be considered a somewhat serious incident.

I would indeed.

Until we know what happened, it is impossible to assess how serious the situation was.

Therefore my question here, as I could not find anything on AVherald about this touch&go-around, though the pilot announced to the pax after the touch&go and before the final landing that it was due to 'something on the the runway'.


[Saludos desde Boedo, Gabriel.]

[3WE]

As I learned last week, it is also possible that "a warning light" came on.

[Gabriel]

Therefore my question here, as I could not find anything on AVherald about this touch&go-around, though the pilot announced to the pax after the touch&go and before the final landing that it was due to 'something on the the runway'.


[Saludos desde Boedo, Gabriel.]

¡Oh, no! ¡Otro argentino! (á ñ ü ¿) (saludos desde El Paso, TX).

I would not discard the possibility that the pilot lied, in an attempt to avoid destroying the pax confidence by saying "the approach was horrible, I came in too fast too high and when I flared I balooned and floated too long, then when we were about to touch down so far down the runway, concerned with not being able to stop on the remaining runway I decided that I would give myself a second chance, unfortunately not early enough to avoid contacting the runway first".

I have a friend, not very aviation fan, that came to me terrorized saying the the pilot told them that he didn't like how he was flying this approach so he would go around and try again. Because, you know, How is it possible that the pilot is flying the approach badly? Who's hands have we put our lives in?

[Evan]

At no point. Such a requirement would be impractical. For one thing, it would eliminate any approach with a visibility minimum less than the length of the runway. For another, it would eliminate crested runways.

Ok. Point taken. Perhaps infrared will save us.

But, in this case, SpaceDoc is saying the visibility was clear under the cloud ceiling, although at night, so if there were anything large out there with lights on it (vehicles, airplanes, glowing meteorites), I would expect the pilots to see that and initiate a go-around well before it would involve touching the runway. Especially if it was stacked up approaches and traffic ahead not vacating in time.

Bulls and rabbits are a different story, but I don't think CDG has a livestock problem and it would be incredibly thoughtful to go around for a rabbit.

[Evan]

Therefore my question here, as I could not find anything on AVherald about this touch&go-around, though the pilot announced to the pax after the touch&go and before the final landing that it was due to 'something on the the runway'.

I would not discard the possibility that the pilot lied...

One other thought; was it a hard touchdown that might have bounced?